|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
This is your first post on this thread, this is what sets the topic of discussion:
quote: Any questions you make that do not address this specific topic of debunking selection is off topic and irrelevant whether they are answered or not. You have introduced religion several times, in spite of your plea to keep the thread free of it. You have yet to make a single post that purports to debunk selection. You have also gone off on several tangents about speciation, new kinds, frequently with glaring errors between what you claim and what science says. It is not surprising that these kind of comments of yours draw posts that are not on topic -- because you started them, and your posts are written in the manner of trolls. So whining that you have made replies to posts does not address the fact that all the ones with specific examples of selection occurring are unanswered with anything regarding selection. Perhaps you don't even know what selection is and how it is defined in evolutionary science:
quote: That's the nuts and bolts definition. A more detailed description is:
quote: As noted in several posts this process has been observed many times, it is a FACT that selection occurs. Let the hand-waving denials and obfuscations begin ... as Davidjay fails and fails and fails to debunk selection. It's like debunking gravity: we know it exists. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
There I have totally answered question 121, 124, 122, ... False. You have written posts that do not relate to the evidence of selection provided, rather you go off on some Gish Gallop on other topics all together. This is you failing to answer those posts:
quote: Your response to the message: none.
quote: Your response to the message: none.
quote: Your reply:
quote: Note the complete absence of the word "selection" in your reply, and the total absence of any reference to the selection observed in the listed posts. Your thread is not about transforming fur to scales or missing links, but debunking selection, specifically natural selection of specific traits that have differential success in survival and reproduction, and as such it is a total fail response. See Message 1 if you are confused about the topic. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.
Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine. Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND. That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change. The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead..... The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Davidjay writes: If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist.Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine. Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND. That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change. The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead....
This thread is not about racism or speciation. This thread is about natural selection. We have offered two examples of natural selection. Please address them. If you need help understanding what natural selection is, please ask.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If you win, you lose. If you say and supposedly prove that color is a NEW KIND, then you lose your argument and debate, concerning your theory of evolution is not racist. Curiously this thread is not about creating a "NEW KIND" nor is it about your racism fantasy, it is about selection. You lose. Would you care to try again and address the issue of selection as shown in Message 121, Message 122 and Message 124. Your Message 125 was a complete failure to address the issue. You lost again. For reference on what selection means, please see Message 136 Color is not a new KIND, all people are equal despite the color of skin variation...... racism is vile and is an imagination of natioanlistic people and those that want to start trouble and wars. Evolution supports their supposed differentiation. Evolution is a racist doctrine. Except nobody claimed color created a new KIND or species. You lose. You have yet to establish that "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and I suggest that you return to that topic and do that before spamming other threads with this assertion. You lose.
Moth color change selected out by birds because the moths blend in better to their surroundings and are less likely to be seen, is an adaption from the Lord for the Moth. The moth is still a moth, and the color change in no way means it has changed its genetics or evolved into a NEW KIND. And again, nobody claimed this. What you see is one variety of Pepper moth was selected preferentially over another variety ... of the same species, and thus is an example of selection in action. You lose again.
That is an insane desperate unscientific lie of evolutionists to try and suggest that moth color shows evolutionary change. The lie is yours, by putting words in people's mouths that are not what they say. Another loss.
The God of Selection has been slain, she is dead.... Says the person who appears to be totally incapable of debunking selection ... especially in the face of several examples. Posting a bunch of incoherent phrases, while technically "a reply" is not a response to the substance of the previous post. You have not addressed selection. Fail. Loserby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
What is a kind?
If you are talking about the ability to breed then explain ring species with your creation theory.
or
Larus gulls are one of the big examples of this. Larus is a genus, comprised of several different species, some of which live in a circle around the North Pole. One species of Larus gull lives in Norway. Another lives in Russia. Others live in Siberia, Alaska, Northern Canada, and England. The Larus gulls that live in England can interbreed with the Larus gulls that live in Canada. But they can't interbreed with the ones from Norway. As the Larus gulls' common ancestor circumnavigated the pole, its descendants ended up more and more different from the original population that had been left behind. By the time Larus gulls met Larus gulls again, they were so different as to be unable (or unwilling) to produce chicks together. But scientists consider every step in that process to be a different species not just the gulls at either end of the broken ring.
Just a moment...Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I love ring species. They are a great example of how a species varies within itself and comes to a point of inability to interbreed with members of the original population, but are still that same species. They most likely lose the ability to interbreed simply because of a genetic mismatch after so many population splits with decreasing genetic diversity. It is one of my most favorite examples for how "evolution defeats evolution:" the populations are evolving from one to another around the ring, developing new phenotypes and losing genetic diversity as they go. This could be a version of the laboratory experiment I mentioned. I know it's claimed they don't lose genetic diversity but they have to. It has to be the reason for the genetic mismatch when the two ends of the ring meet.
Oh and it doesn't take millions of years. Maybe a hundred. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Davidjay writes: Blue genes, Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. Did you mean to say: Changes in skin, eye and hair color don't mean that there have been changes from skin into non-skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales? If so, that's trivially true, certainly. Does that mean you agree with the evidence in the paper for positive natural selection taking place for colouring in Europeans, or that you disagree?
David writes: The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Of course not. It is just an example of natural selection occurring in the wild, one of many that shows us that natural selection is a real phenomenon, and therefore that its existence can't be "logically and systematically" debunked.
Davidjay writes: Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation... Actually, the mutation can be dated to long after the species came into existence.
Davidjay writes: You must show us some men evolving.... That's exactly what the paper I linked to did show. Humans, like other organisms, are always evolving.
Davidjay writes: .....or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women. But please no more rabbits in a hat. Thanks David Don't you like the idea of rabbits being magicked out of a hat? Isn't ex nihilo creation your thing? If you are going to "logically and systematically" debunk the readily observed creative processes of mutation and selection, surely you should be showing us that rabbits and other modern organisms can be created ex nihilo, or some other alternative to the view favoured by biologists, shouldn't you? So, you've made more than 30 posts on the thread now. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection? When are you going to pull that rabbit magically out of an empty hat? Blue genes*
*positively selected
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
losing genetic diversity as they go. This could be a version of the laboratory experiment I mentioned. I know it's claimed they don't lose genetic diversity but they have to. It has to be the reason for the genetic mismatch when the two ends of the ring meet. Prove it. As fare as i can tell they have no genetic desieses among their whole population a sign of lack of genetic diversity. Like lions do for example. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
According to Jerry Coyne there are no ring species.
There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole.
Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Davidjay,
Your topic is debunking selection, but you're instead talking about racism and speciation and other things. Please address the topic or I will drop this thread into summation mode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. A purebred dog has consistent traits because all other traits have been bred out of the breed. Each purebred has less genetic diversity than the dog population as a whole. Curiously purebred dogs are controlled and maintained by high artificial selection pressure, where any pup that doesn't measure up is dropped. Bad example for use against natural selection, but excellent example of why creationist arguments are wrong -- their posited unevidenced position only occurs in extreme artificial selection conditions, not in the wild. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Dogs are an example of how genetic diversity can be lost. The mutations leading to black coat color in pocket mice is an example of how mutations increase genetic diversity.
Another example is that the bacteria in Lenski's LTEE have reduced their genomes, discarding genes that aren't beneficial in the experiment environment. Those bacterial lineages also have mutations not found in the original parent stock, and some of those mutations were fixed in the population through positive natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Darwin used many examples of animal breeding to support his arguments for natural selection. Since humans are part of nature then deliberate selection by humans is a form of natural selection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024